Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There occurs.....or not....a breakdown. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ground has been planted.......the seed are alive....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...the farmer waits for rain........ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhhh......if were only that simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > You are not telling the truth. > > > > > > > > > > You *want* it all to be complicated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan offers the bromide: " Do not attach " . > > > > > > > > Do you think that the self can extricate itself from its conundrum so easily? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > So, now you're concerned about extricating a self that doesn't exist? > > > > > > And you think bromides are being offered to it? > > > > > > Sheesh, and double sheesh. > > > > > > Nyah, nyah, nyah, ad infinitum. > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > And yet you advise not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > " I advise .. " ??? > > Are you for real? > > > -- Dan > Can anything be for real? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So he's advising attachment not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Heheh... I dunno... don't remember what he said. Did it appear to you to be advice? > > > > > > > > > Dan: > > > > > > " don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > now. " > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > You missed the key word in this statement you're citing, Toom. > > Now. > > If you understood that as you read it, you wouldn't be going back to retrieve words to try to prove a point. > > Sheesh. Are you not trying to prove a point? The self is a many pointed object. (in backgroung: " The hills are alive.................. " ) Oh.......there is no such thing as " now " . toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an > > > > > > > > activity, > > > > > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function > > > > > > > > here as > > > > > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone > > > > > > > > " else. " > > > > > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will > > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in > > > > > > > > here/out > > > > > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an > > > > > > > > attempt to > > > > > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a > > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and > > > > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > > > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > > > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > > > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > neither no nor not no, no? > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > brains are not required. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what your brain tells you? > > > > > > > > > > toombsru > > > well toombsru.. > > i think you just proved my point. > > LOL! > > .b b.b. > You still got points. (toombaru looks down and he sees nothing but a big round object.) He smiles......and thinks: " I have arrived......all my points are gone. " toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > There occurs.....or not....a breakdown. > > > > > > The ground has been planted.......the seed are alive....... > > > > > > ...the farmer waits for rain........ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > now. > > > > is. > Ahhhh......if were only that simple. > > > > > toombaru what's complicated? it's the MOST simple possible. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 The unwise, egoic teachers want to create dependency. geo> The unwise, egoic teachers....are they teachers? I guess they are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 12:08:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, fewtch writes: Nisargadatta , "dan330033" <dan330033 wrote:>> Thinking is pointing.> > So it needs to imagine something pointed to.> > That is how it works.> > The thought is an imagining that images a pointed-to object outside of the thought.> > Thought calling the pointed to "unreal" is as useless as calling it "real." Unreal and real are both thought-categories.> > Thought dissolves.> > NOW ... this.> > > -- D.Seems here there are deep emotional connections within thought, and it doesn't dissolve quite so easily as noticing "everything is a thought-category". Some sort of 'background process' seems to be around, maintaining the status-quo. By accident (or apparent process involving an increasing disinterest in things related to 'me'), it may dissolve. Seems unlikely it's due to reading a message on a mailing list. ***And really, thought itself is not the bugaboo, just the thoughts that swirl around the 'me'. However, it's a bit of a shock to realize if it doesn't have anything to do with 'ME', there's really not much left of any interest to think about. Hehe. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 12:21:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, fewtch writes: > Hi Dan> That's been my 'issue' with real/unreal too; it only applies within the > illusion where nothing is real and there's no-thing 'outside' of the illusion > on which to base the notion of real/unreal. It's just the mind that wants > to separate real from unreal, which is, itself, 'unreal'. How does a dream > character look around at a dreamscape and separate the real from the > unreal? It's meaningless.Depends how the 'unreal thing' is dismissed. If one then loses interest and never thinks about the 'unreal thing' again, its reality or unreality no longer matters. This may be the proper role for the whole "real/unreal" game, but it depends on continuing disinterest in 'unreal things'. Most folks are instead very interested in unreality, and think constantly about how cool it is that X thingie is unreal (LOL). ***Well, I dunno. I think the mind just habitually seeks out the real, assuming it is of greater value, but that's only true in the context of dying of thirst in the desert and spotting an oasis off in the distance. Then it has meaning. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Phil " <souldreamone@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So he's advising attachment not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Heheh... I dunno... don't remember what he said. Did it appear to you to be advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: > > > > > > > > > " don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > > > now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > ****Hard to know who/what Dan thought he was talking to but what's important is what is hearing. Is an imaginary self or attachment hearing anything? Seems purdy durn unlikely that thoughts can hear stuff, so what's listening; what's aware off those thoughts? > > > > > > Just to be clear, imaginary people don't think, don't type, don't do anything. Ego's also don't do anything like get all egoic. People, ego, self are no more than thoughts. The question is, who's thoughts? > > > > Once that's seriously overconceptualized too, you might settle on something like Awareness or Consciousness or Self or some such, but whatever it is seems to be intelligent enough to respond, like what's happening here on the forum. > > > > Something is experiencing and responding, and as such, offering advice to the thing experiencing and responding doesn't seem to me to be a totally insane thing to do. > > > > >Advise to other egos concerning ways to fix their consition and is >about as close to insane as it gets. > > > toombaru D: The words I offered constitute advice and presuppose volition in your head, Tom. From here, I was offering an observation based on first-hand experience, for whatever it might be worth to someone who would hear it as offered. The words I spoke presuppose volition in your head, apparently. So, you drag a concept out of your head, " volition, " to attack it as if supposedly coming from another. And you call the concept of volition " insane. " Yet the distinction between sanity and insanity presupposes volition. Funny, no? And is it not insanity to dredge up concepts from one's own mind and then attack them as if coming from outside? Probably, I'm missing something here. Smiles, Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 > > > > > There occurs.....or not....a breakdown. > > > > > > The ground has been planted.......the seed are alive....... > > > > > > ...the farmer waits for rain........ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > now. > > > > is. > Ahhhh......if were only that simple. > > > > > toombaru what's complicated? it's the MOST simple possible. ..b b.b. Thats the point. Nothing is more simple. Its counting till two...the three comes by itself. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/25/2009 10:48:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > fewtch@ writes: > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil (welcome back to the list, BTW) -- > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " Phil " <souldreamone@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Something is experiencing and responding, and as such, offering > > > > > > advice to the thing experiencing and responding doesn't seem to me to > > > > > > > > > > be a totally insane thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > I'm experiencing your experiencing, and responding to your responding. > > > > > > > > > > I'm aware of that. > > > > > > > > > > What I'm not aware of is anything apart -- like, " someone else " > > > > > experiencing and responding. > > > > > > > > > > All advice offered is to myself ;-). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***Hi Tim. Yeah, i'm back to remind myself why I left. I'm sure it will > > > > > come to me. Hehe. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, advice offered to mySelf, but not to the ego self. No ego is > > > > > listening. > > > > > > > > From here, ego is the belief in ego... like the the annoying Toombaru case > > > > :-/. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****Right, and beyond a belief it has no reality. To me, Toom is annoying > > > > because he is obtuse, possibly purposely so. The point is consistently > > > > missed and a 90 deg turn is taken, which serves the purpose of avoiding the > > > > issue and also making the other wrong. > > > > > > That tends to happen when one has " other " in mind when posting... to try and show somebody something, teach somebody something, etc., often for purposes of glorifying one's sense of self. From here, the only 'value' in talking about this stuff is in seeing if it applies to oneself. > > > > > > There is no such thing as instructing others )through one's superiority). Advaita is a self-navigated course, or not at all, and the best teachers consistently point out the need to turn to one's own resources, turn the student to themselves. The unwise, egoic teachers want to create dependency. > > > > > > the wise ones don't teach. > > > > waste of time. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > But they do play in the wake. > > > > > toombaru yes of course. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > So he's advising attachment not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Heheh... I dunno... don't remember what he said. Did it appear to you to be advice? > > Exactly. > > Consider noticing the reactions that occurred ... nah, that would be too simple. > > ;-) > > -- Dan consider how you give advise.. then try and deny it. you can't weasel your way out of it... though you may be a type of weasel. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Phil " <souldreamone@> wrote: > > > > > ****Hard to know who/what Dan thought he was talking to but what's important is what is hearing. Is an imaginary self or attachment hearing anything? Seems purdy durn unlikely that thoughts can hear stuff, so what's listening; what's aware off those thoughts? > > > > > > Just to be clear, imaginary people don't think, don't type, don't do anything. Ego's also don't do anything like get all egoic. People, ego, self are no more than thoughts. The question is, who's thoughts? > > > > Once that's seriously overconceptualized too, you might settle on something like Awareness or Consciousness or Self or some such, but whatever it is seems to be intelligent enough to respond, like what's happening here on the forum. > > > > Something is experiencing and responding, and as such, offering advice to the thing experiencing and responding doesn't seem to me to be a totally insane thing to do. > > Phil -- > > Your comment is on-target to the statement offered. > > " If one has ears to hear, " etc., and so on, and so forth ... > > -- Dan ah the gospels.. so often we find: " etc., and so on, and so forth ... " good shit man but also full of it too. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > roberibus111 > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:49 PM > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > toombaru2006 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, May 25, 2009 4:41 PM > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > toombaru2006 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, May 25, 2009 4:11 PM > > > > Re: no pattern P.S. P.S2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear forum members...you may write...but not loudly please..our > > > > > > friend > > > > > > toomba needs some sleep. ...ssssssssshhh. > > > > > > Just because you dont know what you where before being born means > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > as > > > > > > a ground was? > > > > > > Is that which you where before being born gone now?? > > > > > > ssssssshhh... > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did you get the idea that you were something before you were > > > > > born? > > > > > > > > > > Do you imagine that it came from the same place that the idea that > > > > > you > > > > > will > > > > > live after you die? > > > > > > > > > > I have some news: > > > > > > > > > > The you that you think you are......never was born.......but it will > > > > > die. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Not ME. Not YOU. IT. The unamed, qualitiless, > > > > > existence-per-se....there > > > > > is > > > > > no name for it. > > > > > Look toomba. > > > > > > > > > > The centered entity is gone, right? Its just conditioning... > > > > > Now what is there? There is this organism which is no more then its > > > > > senses. > > > > > The only way i can talk of an organism is because of the senses. I > > > > > am > > > > > looking at the senses. All movements receive by the senses is also > > > > > the > > > > > organism. They are not separte. The dances of colors in the retina > > > > > IS > > > > > the > > > > > organism. So I can say that all perceivable world IS what i am. All > > > > > manifestation is what i am. Now i ask again: what am I? Here is the > > > > > quantum > > > > > leap: a voice in the shadow is saying...any voice...is saying: > > > > > investigate > > > > > further, you are not this world you perceive...you are beyond. That > > > > > beyond > > > > > hs no name no quality no nothing..nonetheless is real. It is the > > > > > foundation > > > > > of existence per se. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you identify with everything.....there is still and > > > > entity.....identifying. > > > > > > > > But now it is a really really big entity....... > > > > > > > > Even if its center is everywhere....you still have an entity on your > > > > really > > > > really big hands. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Yes, yes, yes!! Once you are looking hermeticaly to the senses ONLY, > > > > you > > > > are > > > > aware of only ONE thing which is the totality of the sense inputs. > > > > Stay > > > > there for a while. Investigate it. Stabilize in it. There is this huge > > > > ME > > > > that is the totality of the human world. Now a voice says what you > > > > said > > > > above: If you identify with everything.....there is still and > > > > entity.....identifying.But now it is a really really big > > > > entity.......Even > > > > if its center is everywhere....you still have an entity on your really > > > > really big hands. > > > > > > > > Yes true! But the voice goes further.It is aking tou to consider the > > > > possibility, no.....hte absolute nescessity...of.... > > > > You are not that huge world. You are beyond. It is always > > > > receeding....but > > > > is real. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Hey......that sounds like a good movie. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > Why can't you just be happy with what you already have? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Because in these few days I am in this cool list I learned to admire > > > you. I > > > consider you as a friend. Besides I am very selfish, egoist..I mean > > > it!!! I > > > alway want more and more...I am not satisfied untill I get thyyyy > > > most!!! > > > And I want you to get this thing. > > > - :>)) - > > > > > > > > > It's a thing now is it? > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > toombaru > > it never was anything else. > > .b b.b. > > What would else then existence be? > -geo- i don't know. but i know it's not about an " else " . ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an > > > > > > > > > activity, > > > > > > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function > > > > > > > > > here as > > > > > > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone > > > > > > > > > " else. " > > > > > > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will > > > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in > > > > > > > > > here/out > > > > > > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an > > > > > > > > > attempt to > > > > > > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a > > > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and > > > > > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > > > > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > > > > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > > > > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > neither no nor not no, no? > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > brains are not required. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what your brain tells you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombsru > > > > > > well toombsru.. > > > > i think you just proved my point. > > > > LOL! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > You still got points. > > (toombaru looks down and he sees nothing but a big round object.) > > He smiles......and thinks: > > " I have arrived......all my points are gone. " > toombaru > that's " self " evident. i didn't need for you to write anything. " round " ???? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an > > > > > > > > > > activity, > > > > > > > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It > > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function > > > > > > > > > > here as > > > > > > > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone > > > > > > > > > > " else. " > > > > > > > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will > > > > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in > > > > > > > > > > here/out > > > > > > > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an > > > > > > > > > > attempt to > > > > > > > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives > > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a > > > > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and > > > > > > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > > > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > > > > > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > > > > > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > > > > > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > neither no nor not no, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brains are not required. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what your brain tells you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombsru > > > > > > > > > well toombsru.. > > > > > > i think you just proved my point. > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > You still got points. > > > > (toombaru looks down and he sees nothing but a big round object.) > > > > He smiles......and thinks: > > > > " I have arrived......all my points are gone. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > that's " self " evident. > > i didn't need for you to write anything. > > " round " ???? > > :-) > > .b b.b. > well...........it's not really round......i was just pointing.......you know........to the moon....... ..........i forgot.......why was i pointing to the moon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > meaningless to the meaningless? > > white on white kiddo. > > .b b.b. yes, meaningless to the meaningless. invisible on invisible kiddo. ..d .d .d Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Phil " <souldreamone@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So he's advising attachment not to attach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Heheh... I dunno... don't remember what he said. Did it appear to you to be advice? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: > > > > > > > > > > > > " don't attach to a dream, and it is of no concern. > > > > > > > > the only breakdown is of the attaching attempt. > > > > > > > > don't attach and you don't need to wait. > > > > > > > > now. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > ****Hard to know who/what Dan thought he was talking to but what's important is what is hearing. Is an imaginary self or attachment hearing anything? Seems purdy durn unlikely that thoughts can hear stuff, so what's listening; what's aware off those thoughts? > > > > > > > > > Just to be clear, imaginary people don't think, don't type, don't do anything. Ego's also don't do anything like get all egoic. People, ego, self are no more than thoughts. The question is, who's thoughts? > > > > > > Once that's seriously overconceptualized too, you might settle on something like Awareness or Consciousness or Self or some such, but whatever it is seems to be intelligent enough to respond, like what's happening here on the forum. > > > > > > Something is experiencing and responding, and as such, offering advice to the thing experiencing and responding doesn't seem to me to be a totally insane thing to do. > > > > > > > > > > >Advise to other egos concerning ways to fix their consition and is >about as close to insane as it gets. > > > > > > toombaru > > D: The words I offered constitute advice and presuppose volition in your head, Tom. From here, I was offering an observation based on first-hand experience, for whatever it might be worth to someone who would hear it as offered. > > The words I spoke presuppose volition in your head, apparently. > > So, you drag a concept out of your head, " volition, " to attack it as if supposedly coming from another. > > And you call the concept of volition " insane. " Yet the distinction between sanity and insanity presupposes volition. > > Funny, no? > > And is it not insanity to dredge up concepts from one's own mind and then attack them as if coming from outside? > > Probably, I'm missing something here. > > Smiles, > > Dan Michael.. doesn't Dan know you aren't Tom? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > the farmer who waits is a fool. > > the harvest is already here. > > .b b.b. this is as it as it will ever be. ..d .d .d Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >D: Here is where it gets interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an > > > > > > > > > > > activity, > > > > > > > > > > > an attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It > > > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > > > an actually existing thing, being, or center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function > > > > > > > > > > > here as > > > > > > > > > > > a center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone > > > > > > > > > > > " else. " > > > > > > > > > > > It has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will > > > > > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > > > away all my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > how the world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > person. It is a matter of vision, of awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in > > > > > > > > > > > here/out > > > > > > > > > > > there undivided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an > > > > > > > > > > > attempt to > > > > > > > > > > > hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives > > > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a > > > > > > > > > > > matter > > > > > > > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and > > > > > > > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > > > > no 'me' center found anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not inside or outside. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no > > > > > > > > > > > division. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That is very good, Dan! I would only change > > > > > > > > > > the last sentence to read: And therefore, awareness > > > > > > > > > > is the same in all brains. Your sentence could be > > > > > > > > > > understood as if asserting a universal awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geo>P, waht do you mean by universal awareness? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: That awareness could exist without brains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > neither no nor not no, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there not such qualitiless IT that exists without a brain? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brains are not required. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that what your brain tells you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombsru > > > > > > > > > > > > well toombsru.. > > > > > > > > i think you just proved my point. > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You still got points. > > > > > > (toombaru looks down and he sees nothing but a big round object.) > > > > > > He smiles......and thinks: > > > > > > " I have arrived......all my points are gone. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > that's " self " evident. > > > > i didn't need for you to write anything. > > > > " round " ???? > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > well...........it's not really round......i was just pointing.......you know........to the moon....... > > > .........i forgot.......why was i pointing to the moon? LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > meaningless to the meaningless? > > > > white on white kiddo. > > > > .b b.b. > > yes, meaningless to the meaningless. > > invisible on invisible kiddo. > > .d .d .d sure..you bet. i believe you. hahahahaaaaaaaa. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > the farmer who waits is a fool. > > > > the harvest is already here. > > > > .b b.b. > > this is as it as it will ever be. > > .d .d .d repetitions are not necessary. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 1:23:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:> > Yea I guess it is so...> I read so often people saying that that is not real. My mind goes through > several acrobatic contortions to grasp such a thing...never been able to > figure it out. We can talk of things that are ephemeral, that are temporal, > that exist only in memory.... or consider that all things where born and > will die or dissolve or change...in contrast to the only one that is > changeless. That I could understand....> .....what a world....what a world...> -geo-Is there understanding that is not based on thought?That is aware, alive, but not dependent on a thought-form as a basis to know, to be?One raises this question using thought - but it cannot be answered by thought.That is because the basis for the question arising through thought, is not of thought, either.At the heart of the question, is the answer to the question.-- D. ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless moment of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs only in the absence of such thinkingness. Nothing else is of any value in dissipating ignorance. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 2:33:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, fewtch writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless moment > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs only > in the absence of such thinkingness.Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The "holding on" called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the "I" you see here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word. **Well, a timeless 'seeing' doesn't require much time (hehe), but I suggest there was a gap in the thoughts. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Can anything be for real? > > > > toombaru Any thing cannot be real. Nor is it unreal, as there is no real thing to compare it with. Thus, to dismiss a thing as unreal gives it an unreality that is as useless as regarding it as real. -- Dan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 26, 2009 In a message dated 5/26/2009 3:00:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, fewtch writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > > > In a message dated 5/26/2009 2:33:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > fewtch writes:> > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:> >> > > > ***Yes. Direct perception, a realization that occurs in a timeless > moment > > of insight without benefit of conceptual thought, and in fact occurs > only > > in the absence of such thinkingness.> > Actually, it can occur right in the midst of conceptual thought. The > "holding on" called 'me', relaxes. That's in fact what happened here in early > '08. Lots of thought was going on, but I was no longer the "I" you see > here as a word ;-)... rather, that which was seeing that word.> > > **Well, a timeless 'seeing' doesn't require much time (hehe), but I > suggest there was a gap in the thoughts.The gap is 'behind' thought, not within it. ***I don't know what that means. We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
